BOAMin11-28-01CITY OF LONG W OOD
BOARD OF AD.IUSTMENTS
November 28, 30UI Minuees
ATTENDANCE:
gpggp; STAFF:
Edward Fagan. Vice Chairperson F.Isy Smgent-Planning Division Manager
Edward Strain Chad Hervey-Planner
1. Russell Hammond Beverly Majors Planning Secretary
ABSENT:
Jim Daly, Chairperson
Barry Revels
t. CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Paean called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
Present were Mr. Fagan, Mr. Strain and Mr. Hammond. Mr. Daly and Me Revels weee
absent.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINU'CES ON Special Meafivg of October 3,2000:
Mr. Hammond made a morian ra approve the Mnutes ojrhe Sperial Mee»ng ofOrtoher 3.
?001 arpresen(ed hS- S~rairc suonded the motion. The morian was wanimmesly approved
13-0).
4. PUBLIC NEARING:
A. VAR 02-Ol Variance-Single Family
Required yard setbacks
38U Harbour (sle Way
Anplioaae: dank sperry
Mr Hammond made a oration ro operc rho PuDllc /fearing on VAR 02-01. Mr-Srratn
seconded the motion- Tlee merlon was unanlmousty approved ~3-OJ.
Mr. Sargent pcovided proofof pvblieation.
Mr. Harvey presented [he Staff MotioNRecommendation and StalPAnalyais.
Staff MOdOn/Recommentlafion:
The Planning Division of the Commwity Services Deportment reoommeadc, based on the
Development Review Board's review and the Findings of Fect. [het the Hoard of Adjastmevt
(BOAT approve the requested variance (VAR 03-01) to reduce the sideyard setback along the
oath property line Gom ten (10) feet ro six (b) Get, and to reduce the rear yazd setback along
thew st peoperry line tlnm tweory-tlve (2J~ feerto [welve (12) Peor
B pl natioNBack~round'
The ProP~Y o. er, Jack Sperry. is seeking two setback va order ze the
e of two pre- dog doorways on the aide antl rear oP hiss ring single,fLmily residence
located in Ne Barbour Isle Snbdivieion. The plaeemem oYthexexistiogsirtgle-family
resitlenee on this patticuler lot has been onset to one side (thesouthem property line) making
it diffwlt to rtasoovbly utilize the already existing doorways located there. A similar
Iim' with rhea ring sliding glass don oche rear of this re(on the
m property line) where mall co to slab has been placed but of be easily
u[ilized or expanded on salt of rhea setback res >B. Uadditio o[he otTset
placx tof the hum ns tArs lot, the design of the hom self poses yet another
that the c as of the hom taateA near the e ring doorways to the side and rear
ofthe hom where s the bedrooms, with oo existing doorways, re located near the more
buildable portion of the lot.
The Development Review Board (URB), at its regular scheduled meeting oCNovember 1.
2001, approved recommending to the Board of Adjustmem (BOA) approval ofthe proposed
ce (VAR 02-01) to reduce the silo (south) and the rear (west) setback requirements w
enable the applicant to make the mast reeronoble use of his existingsipglo-family residence.
Since the applicant has already added two wncrete slabs to the property to service the existing
doorways to Ne south and west of the home, the Planning Division would recommend, that
the BOA mmtdate that bath slobs be permined with the Ciry prior to any constmction on the
slabs as a resnh of an approved variance and as long as neither slab is in or over any easement
Inform tioNlmolem
LDC Seulon 2c.103 04(d.)n
The BOA may prescribe appropriate condidoae for any variance and may prescribe a time limit
not to exceed ninety (90) days for which the verienw shall begin. be completed, or boN.
LDC Section 24-103.05-Expiation
Unless epecillcally stated otherwise, all variance approvals shall expire tdnery(90)days afterfnal
BOA action unless a building permit or cenilicate of occupancy has been issued.
LDC Section 24-103.06 -Appeals
Appeals ofBOA decisions shall be made to the Circuit Court in the mennerand lorm required by
the Court.
Bta[f Analvsty-Chad Harvev:
enmprenensve plan t zoo ~e ennrste
Thesubject site is designated Low Density Residential on the fyfmre land IJSe Mao. Thesire is
caned Raslden[ial Single Pamily (R-I A} The Future Land Use and Zoning on this site an
compatible, end the use oCtheaubJect site is consistent with City policies.
sina a gnaai,inavdal aer ,. me apvbaam naa the bnmen orproof to proaiae
evidence (facts) that enforc of thelCode prov n tfiis specific situation should be
ohavged. The Ciry Codeprov mad to beavalid representation ofpnblic policy and
ere adopted for thebenefr of the publac health, softy and welfare In each ease, the BOA will
determine the relmive importance ofeach ofthc cratuia found iv Chapter 24-I03.OI. ofthe City
Corte, as shown below:
I. That a t coca .•ada wm Im Lmtm s aaircau iaannraa
r~ a~a nn~rr tonne com rehea .:clan
Fu re Lava Use Elena
The slated Purpose ofthe Low Density 12esidevtinl Distract found on page III-38
ofthe CiTy of Longwood Comprehensive Plan ism"...provide for areaz that are
only s itable far low density residential development due [ing
development. neighborhood, panems, environmmnally sensitive azees and to
provide for future development ofa similar nature.'
The proposedvar stcnt with and suppons ihepnlicies and objec[ives
a[the (",omprehevsnve Pl~vsi
z. Thar erantine the orooosed variance will vo salt iv ereatineor eonrinuine.
c o[eirherastraotar the land o mbina not lavda dsrruerure
which is not com atible wi had'acen[Iand uses in the area.
Tne grouting of this will c e thu u of land and srru a that
ampetibleand desired within the Low Density Residen[lal District (LDR). The
progeny is IxatN withiv the LDR District with the Y ning and bend Use beivg
compatible. The use proposed isapermitted use within this district.
3. Thal eranrine the variance iv [ha tu'n' vailable m nerm'I the
noble use o(the orooerrv.
Thegranring ofthe vanancc ~a the mtmmum acrton to allow reasovanle useoftne
property.
The swemre is designed to provide and meet the basic veeds of the property
end will m tall impervious surface and mmtmum ressidemial square
foamgc requiremevta.
Within I.DR. the maximum albwable lSR is .40. and [he minimnm allowable
residevtial square Ibotage is 1.800 square fat. Tne existing single-f ily
rcsiden s 1,840 square fat, with a wml imperv surface lot coverage of
3397 square fees includingall proppsed improvements to the exisYingstructure.
The proposed ISR total is 34 or 34%otthe lot.
Considering the plaecmemol'mis residential structure beingoftset on tole lot as
oved ahove, the proposed v s the minimum auhon available to
permit the most desirable use of tha property.
i. That the cal characteristics ofNesnb'ect site ar a othes e'f
and not vresent on odor
Thcsubjeot single-romily residence has two exiting doorways located in areasof
the home that c early do not have a noble am of buildable ar
ning due xtback require s'the~ ze theirn nableu .The
oNy port nofthis lot that has any open spacn ning is located on [he sideof
the house that has a,e beduo and no doorways that an be utilizedroenter or
leave thehome. Thus, unlike other homes in this areA a major renovation to the
re hom ould havelo occur in orderm miliu the open space nthis lot ins
r that undue ring the c nt setback standards of fhe Land
Development Code for thisoLon ng Uistricturre
The physical ehaeo a of'tlte sae are unique to this specific lot and are not
present on edjec ntcpropenies.
5. That the circumstances creative theacedfora variance are not the result of
ns by the applicant, or actions oroooseJ by the applicant.
The desire and needs of the property owner have brought about the need to
utilize the existing residence in a way that is compatihle with the neignborhood
and with applicable City C des with the exception of the side and rear setback
requirements which have affected the owners ability to reasonably nse the
existing doorways to the side (south) end rear (wes7) of his home.
So as not to impact any adjacent property, [heapplicant has informed the property
o the south and w t of his property and has vcd any negati
intentions t
feedb ekabouthis' oadd se ned-in porchestonethe side (south)and
ar (west) of his hom . With approved side and ce setback variances, the
applicant would be able t onably utilize the existing single-family
residence within the LDR Distnet.
6. That the [the used vat will u colt iv erealin
o ro eartnou eormtne. a melaaa o
omb'na no[the st nnJ lavd4
The grantingofthev wilier ealegal no cooformingsw re Theo
of the site and dte saruaore will betcompatible with the LDR D strict and is
character. It should be noted that engineered drawin6 will be required for the
tin6 slabs or this a that they m all City Codes and will
adequately support the two (2) proposed screen roomtadditione.
Rest endat
mThe Plannnng Olvlslon staff recommends. based on dte Developmem Review Board's
review unJ onanimons recommendation. that the Noard of Adjustment approve VAN
U2-Ol, to reduce the aide yard setback along thesouth property line firm tart (10) feet
six (67 kee and to reduce the rear yard setback along the west peopcrry line fiom
twenty-five (25) feet to twelve (12) leer, based on the following flvdings of face
Fintlines of 4act:
1. 'fhe proposed v e is consistent with the polities and objce rues of the
Compmhensive Plananc
2. 'Ifie proposed van will no result in ore tin6~or continuing.auscthatisincompatible
with land use nthecadjacent area.
r. Theproposcdsvartanw is the mmtmum acuon available to petmn reasonable vee of the
property.
D. The physical eharvneristice are uvique to the specific subject site
5. The proposed vn ce doe suit iron mby the appliean
6. The granting ofthev lance will not result in crea[iag,a eonLnuing,v non conforming
aae on me nro~ny. ar
Fallowing the Stoll Report Mr. Fagan asked if there was any diswssion or questions ftom the
Board. Tbere was no dineussion or questions from the eoazd.
Mr. Fagan made a m~ ~ - ro approve VAR 02-01 j 380 Harboty /sle Way in accordance
with Sr ~s report an/:~~ and the FinrHngs ofFacl and lha comdilian shat bash slabs
be pennllr~ ~: he ~ ~ any consrracrion on the sbbr and as bng a.r'rceieher slab
any-arlfon vJlhe ensemenr area. Mr Strain seconded the
moaan rTha mnnon n,,. anamm~ ~ s(y approved /3-0).
Mr. Sperry's sister. Nmrey Harris, J I S South Prospw4 Crescent City, Floridv asked [o speak.
Shc thaNced the l5oardf rspending Chet nthev requc t. Shealso aced how uch
theynpprceiatedrhe Stuff, that they were so kind and rourteous to them, adding ihvt the Sraffhad
the fn'endlive sof peopla who work lna mallw and theprofssi nalism cfthosewho work
n a big city. She wanted to let the Board vnd StalPknow they appreciated the efforts from Mr.
Sargent and Mr. Harvey and thanked the Board for their evenin6 and time.
Mr. Hamneand rnadea nrndon ra close the Pahlic Hearing on Vqk 02-01. Mr. ,Strain secandad
the marton The monon was unannnt usly approved (3-OJ.
5. OLD BUSINESS:
There was no Old Business.
b. NF.W 6USIN6SS:
Mr. Sargent advised the Board that the Nearing Uali for the LDC would be going dvough the
boards foe approval artd advised them of the proposed seheAule hle advised them that as
soon as the LDC wns accepted copies of the approved LDC would he given to them
~. DISCUSSION AND SCI~IF.DULE POR FUTURE ITEMS:
There is nothing scitcduled for Dwember 1G 2001 meeting.
Since cherc is no business uhedoledfor theme wtg, there will not bea Decemberm ring.
A. PUBLIC COMMF.NT;'[here vvas oo public presem For comment.
9. ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Hun and moCenmorlon~radJournmercr. Mr. Str~nirr seeortAed tM1e motion. The ntnrlon
.. as unantmmrsy up-~oved (3-0)-